Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

The population is rising, but the percentage by which it is rising, is declining. The population is equalling out, and will reach equilibrium about 2050 or so, as the projections suggest. As what happening here is that first world nation are having population decline with national births, but its being off set by immigration as those escape third world countries. The population after 2050 may very well start declining, until a new equilibrium is reached and world level of living keeps rising.

The fact that you think that some sort of 'equilibrium' will be reached implies that you think at some point things will stop changing. If so, you do not understand how life works at all.

The rest of your post is typical humanist derogatory bullshit, and if i wasn't about to head over to a friend's house for pizza and poker, i'd give you the whole 'living world' perception spiel. Since i am, that will have to wait until tomorrow.


Just a parting note however; you might find that if you stop defining "Intelligent" as "A Human" that things like 'will' and 'mind' become far less clear.

[G-Flex]

He made good points, and you're being an ass about them.


The population of a species reaching equilibrium is not a new concept; it happens. He never said it would happen and stay that way until the end of time, which would be naive and silly. However, it's perfectly normal for a population under given conditions to eventually reach some sort of equilibrium population. The reason it's a bit more volatile with humans is because our situation changes fairly often due to technological achievements and that sort of thing.


The part about "no mind or will" is sort of weird, though. Animals have varying degrees of either of those, although the terms themselves are extremely nebulous.

The funny part is the "it's just chemistry happening!" bit applies just as much to any human mind.

[Smitehappy]

He made good points, and you're being an ass about them.

He didn't make a single valid point. All he did was put human consciousness on some sort of pedestal like it's a gift from god and woe be the lesser beings who inhabit this world as he pulled that "stable populations at 2050" crap out of his ass like it was a circus act.

[MrWiggles]

Yea, the term mind used there was a loaded term that I ill defined, as for the population projections there from the UN.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/pubsarchive/chart/3.pdf
Its a rather lengthy document, that I havent read in 1+ years.  This is not the document I thought it was. It lacks the regional break down. Though it is a neat document none the less. It also doesn't dismiss my point.

 I think a new document is due in a few years.

May I please have an apology for the accusation that it was work of fiction. I would prefer in the future if you (Smitehappy) asked for citation, or had issued a counter example to dismiss what I said.

There are a handful of other animals that are sapient. Though there are no animals to our level of cognitive functions. There no observe metacongitive functionality (thinking, about thinking), there no observed on par abstract thinking. Indian elephants seem to be close to this, as can conceptualize and produce things on their own accords. Some chimpanzees have been taught how to use an abstract exchange system though from the last time I looked into it, there was no innovation or real variance. The impression I got was that they knew rules but didnt know how the rules worked. Ravens, and crows also good at problem solving as well. Domestic dogs and cats vary in intelligence by breed, though classical intelligence test do not work on them as well. The mirror test a prime example here, as dogs and cats ignore their own reflections, which is in counter example to a majority of avians that think of their own reflection as another bird.

Tool use has been seen as emergent behavior with river dolphins? (It maybe just bottle nose dolphins.) and there an ape breed as well that recently started to.

Human beings are unique in our application of our mind. Its our primary evolutionary advantage that weather us through several near extinctions and allow us to prosper to about 10-7 billion by 2050.

I am a humanist, so it does seep through my views.

I was using mind, as planning and fore thought. As in, it was a goal to have offspring. I will find a mate, and we're going to have offspring. Majority of flora and fauna do not do this. Some seem to. Human do.

A bunny doesn't copulate with nother bunny with the thought that they are going to have a litter. A female cat does not encourage multiple male partners to ensure genetic diversity within a select small genepool of a cat colony. Mating rituals can be instinctual, and can be learned behaviors and can be a mixture of both.

The main issue here is the continuum of instincts and ability of fore thought. There hard extreme boundaries and a fairly fuzzy middle.

I also don't think consciousness if a gift bequeathed from a supernatural force, or can only arise in a singular species. Thats nonsense. Since its impossible for Earth to be the only planet with flora or fauna, there must be others out there, and semblance of primitive form exist here on this very planet. Human linage in fact out paced and out competed a rival humanoid of similar cognitive progression.

[dreiche2]

While I'm glad the discussion isn't going in circles anymore about the definition of atheism and religion, you guys lost me now. What is the discussion about now, and why?

 

Your DNA would say you have the purpose of successfully reproducing.

Don't know about you, by last time I checked, my DNA doesn't talk.

But seriously, I'm not sure what are getting at here. Attributing a purpose to or deriving one from evolution is about as meaningful as deriving one from gravity.

The population is rising, but the percentage by which it is rising, is declining. The population is equalling out, and will reach equilibrium about 2050 or so, as the projections suggest. As what happening here is that first world nation are having population decline with national births, but its being off set by immigration as those escape third world countries. The population after 2050 may very well start declining, until a new equilibrium is reached and world level of living keeps rising.

The fact that you think that some sort of 'equilibrium' will be reached implies that you think at some point things will stop changing. If so, you do not understand how life works at all.

Sorry what are you guys arguing about? Population levels reaching a ceiling is a natural consequence of resources being bounded.

Why this continues to happen in flora and fauna is a mystery. Its one of those 'why' questions, that may very well have a definitive 'how' answer.

Sorry what is a mystery? I can't see a mystery here.

Human beings are unique in our application of our mind.

While I'm at loss why we are discussing this now, my opinion is that it is not clear in how far the difference in between humans and other species is really qualitative or categorical, and not just quantitative. As for consciousness specifically, I am of the opinion that at the very least all mammals have conscious experience (i.e. aware experience - not necessarily self-awareness, though), seeing as all mammals are using essentially the same hardware brain-wise, qualitatively speaking.

[Neruz]

Decided not to get drunk, so.

The population is rising, but the percentage by which it is rising, is declining. The population is equalling out, and will reach equilibrium about 2050 or so, as the projections suggest. As what happening here is that first world nation are having population decline with national births, but its being off set by immigration as those escape third world countries. The population after 2050 may very well start declining, until a new equilibrium is reached and world level of living keeps rising.

The fact that you think that some sort of 'equilibrium' will be reached implies that you think at some point things will stop changing. If so, you do not understand how life works at all.

Sorry what are you guys arguing about? Population levels reaching a ceiling is a natural consequence of resources being bounded.

True, but unlike most other animals we have the capability to unlock futher resources, and the resources we require are extremely temporary in comparison to the resources most other animals require (namely the Sun, although it often has to go through a few other animals first), as a result of these two factors, the 'equilibrium' Human population fluctuates wildly, and note that even once a population reaches equilibrium, it continues to breed, it has merely reached the point where births equal, rather than exceed, deaths.

But seriously, I'm not sure what are getting at here. Attributing a purpose to or deriving one from evolution is about as meaningful as deriving one from gravity.

Where else are you going to get a purpose from? "To Breed" seems like a pretty good purpose to me, clean, concise, efficient and impossible to misinterpret.

A bunny doesn't copulate with nother bunny with the thought that they are going to have a litter.

Really? Can you prove that?

The main issue here is the continuum of instincts and ability of fore thought. There hard extreme boundaries and a fairly fuzzy middle.

No, the main issue here is that you, like so many others, seem to think that following one particular evolutionary trail to a successful end somehow elevates us above everything else that lives on this planet. It's this inflated sense of self worth that leads to incredibly mind-bogglingly stupid concepts like Humans being unnatural.

[chaoticag]

Breed isn't much of a purpose in life, and I'm not sure why you decided to settle on that, but it isn't really isn't the purpose of life. To assign a purpose to life implies a higher meaning of it, and there can't be purpose without there being a larger picture, a goal you strive towards. I don't believe there is a greater scheme of things, therefore, life has no purpose. It mearly is.

[MrWiggles]

Why this continues to happen in flora and fauna is a mystery. Its one of those 'why' questions, that may very well have a definitive 'how' answer.

Sorry what is a mystery? I can't see a mystery here.

That protein sequences and chemical bounds through chemical functions allows for division, rebounding growing in number, and why & how that translated into organic life. 

I consider that mysterious. I like things being demystified though.

Human beings are unique in our application of our mind.

While I'm at loss why we are discussing this now, my opinion is that it is not clear in how far the difference in between humans and other species is really qualitative or categorical, and not just quantitative. As for consciousness specifically, I am of the opinion that at the very least all mammals have conscious experience (i.e. aware experience - not necessarily self-awareness, though), seeing as all mammals are using essentially the same hardware brain-wise, qualitatively speaking.

Animal cognitive science is still in its infancy, only recently has there been a decent amount of work done. It seems like animals have a variety cognitive attributes, though select few of them. Like some breeds of ants can count, and chimpanzee can do basic math and remember a good range of numbers. It seems like animals have some deceptively good input devices for their instincts.

Though neither of them can do game theory or industrialized yet.

The main issue here is the continuum of instincts and ability of fore thought. There hard extreme boundaries and a fairly fuzzy middle.

No, the main issue here is that you, like so many others, seem to think that following one particular evolutionary trail to a successful end somehow elevates us above everything else that lives on this planet. It's this inflated sense of self worth that leads to incredibly mind-bogglingly stupid concepts like Humans being unnatural.

I DO?! HOLY SHIT! PRAY TELL, WHAT ELSE DO I THINK AND BELIEVE? PLEASE TELL ME, WHAT I BELIEVE! WHAT ARE ARE MY OTHER STANCES ON OTHER TOPICS?! BECAUSE THIS IS SHOCKING, I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD A TELE-PATHETIC PERSON IN THIS THREAD!

Seriously, what? When did I say human were unnatural? I'm right here, participating in this thread you can ask me if I thought that or ask for clarity.

And I've stated we're smarter then most other animals on the planet and unique in its application (and again to our planet), unless I've missed something and there is a secret super advance city of apes in africa with cloaking technology and flying benches. Oh, and they also have direct energy weapons too. Or bottle nose dolphins secretly live in atlantis where they've industrialized and surpassed the nuclear age. What we've seen so far, is the dolphin equivalent of amish dolphin who live in comparatively paleolithic hunter gather societies on purpose.

Hell, if you want to talk to me, one of my zanier unfounded speculation on marine mammal culture is that they have a religion of some sort. That neigher here no there.

No human are animals like any other, our predomiant evolutionary advantage has afforded us luxury & understanding unseen in nature though and continuation to shape our future with generational foresight.

Since human are animals we are susceptible to natural instincts and pressure.

I have a friend, by the name of JohhnytheSquee who believes being sapient is an unnatural development. He not terribly knowledge on evolution, or human evolution, or science in general, and believes that being sapient is unnatural because of bottle nose dolphins since their brian is of similar size of our.

Although his source fails to take into account a good portion of a bottle nose dolphin brain are a fatty tissue to prevent the brain from being to cold, so its not as large as it looks. He also believes that 9/11 was caused by Bush, when he thinks that all government are boobs in general.
I think his notion is silly since we clearly see the foundation in other races for our level of intelligence and sapient creature exist in other races, such as the dolphin he pointed out.

[MrWiggles]

Breed isn't much of a purpose in life, and I'm not sure why you decided to settle on that, but it isn't really isn't the purpose of life. To assign a purpose to life implies a higher meaning of it, and there can't be purpose without there being a larger picture, a goal you strive towards. I don't believe there is a greater scheme of things, therefore, life has no purpose. It mearly is.

Beside the one we provide ourselves.

[Forumsdwarf]

Its not a goal, reproduction is happenstance.

I believe you're right but only temporarily.

I predict that as teenage pregnancy continues to be a problem and the stigma of birth control continues to recede it will eventually become as commonplace as the HPV inoculation -- all teenagers will get it, and they will continue using it throughout adulthood.  A few parents will opt their kids out, but they'll be statistical outliers and eventually social pariahs once teenage pregnancy becomes stigmatized (as today when a kid gets measles the parents are blamed for opting their kid out of vaccinations.)

When birth control becomes something everyone does by default, the act of not doing it becomes a choice, and only those who make that decision will pass their genes on to the next generation.

At least some people feel the urge to reproduce outside of the desire for sex.  Should any of that be heritable it will continue to be selected for while the heritable traits that lead to accidental reproduction (impulsiveness, general or situational) will no longer be genetic advantages.

If the only people who have children are those who want them, if there is any such thing as an "Urge to Parent Gene" it will eventually dominate the population.  (A "faith gene" counts, as those who have the gene and are members of a religion that commands reproduction will obey.)

But I do agree with you, if I'm understanding you correctly, that a tendency toward impulsive sex is the more common reason for reproduction than the specific urge to have children ... for now.

[Neruz]

Breed isn't much of a purpose in life

Sounds like a pretty good purpose to me. Care to explain what's wrong with it?

To assign a purpose to life implies a higher meaning of it

No it doesn't.

The purpose of this cookie is to taste good, does the fact that this cookie has a purpose assign a higher meaning to it? Of course not. It's a cookie, it tastes good. That is it's purpose.

there can't be purpose without there being a larger picture, a goal you strive towards.

Sure there can, my purpose in life is to breed and ensure the survival of my offspring, everything i do is geared towards that end goal.

I don't believe there is a greater scheme of things, therefore, life has no purpose. It mearly is.

A purpose is not some sort of incredible godlike concept. My curtains have a purpose, their purpose is to cover my window and stop the sunlight getting in when they are closed. This is not part of some 'greater scheme', it's just their purpose. That's why they are the way they are.

I DO?! HOLY SHIT! PRAY TELL, WHAT ELSE DO I THINK AND BELIEVE? PLEASE TELL ME, WHAT I BELIEVE! WHAT ARE ARE MY OTHER STANCES ON OTHER TOPICS?! BECAUSE THIS IS SHOCKING, I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD A TELE-PATHETIC PERSON IN THIS THREAD!

OH HAY LOOK YOU DIDN'T READ MY POST WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?

Seriously, what? When did I say human were unnatural?

You didn't, why are you even asking this?

And I've stated we're smarter then most other animals on the planet and unique in its application (and again to our planet), unless I've missed something and there is a secret super advance city of apes in africa with cloaking technology and flying benches. Oh, and they also have direct energy weapons too. Or bottle nose dolphins secretly live in atlantis where they've industrialized and surpassed the nuclear age. What we've seen so far, is the dolphin equivalent of amish dolphin who live in comparatively paleolithic hunter gather societies on purpose.

We're smarter than all the other animals on the planet. And the Peregrine Falcon is faster than all the other animals on the planet. Does it get to be special too?

I have a friend, by the name of JohhnytheSquee who believes being sapient is an unnatural development. He not terribly knowledge on evolution, or human evolution, or science in general, and believes that being sapient is unnatural because of bottle nose dolphins since their brian is of similar size of our.

Although his source fails to take into account a good portion of a bottle nose dolphin brain are a fatty tissue to prevent the brain from being to cold, so its not as large as it looks. He also believes that 9/11 was caused by Bush, when he thinks that all government are boobs in general.
I think his notion is silly since we clearly see the foundation in other races for our level of intelligence and sapient creature exist in other races, such as the dolphin he pointed out.

Actually Dolphins aren't a very good example. If you want a good example, remember that Cro Magnon (our ancestors) were not the only Human-type monkeys around. Off the top of my head i can only name the Neanderthals, but i'm pretty sure there were at least another three or four species (or subspecies, or whatever you want to call it)

I believe you're right but only temporarily.

I predict that as teenage pregnancy continues to be a problem and the stigma of birth control continues to recede it will eventually become as commonplace as the HPV inoculation -- all teenagers will get it, and they will continue using it throughout adulthood.  A few parents will opt their kids out, but they'll be statistical outliers and eventually social pariahs once teenage pregnancy becomes stigmatized (as today when a kid gets measles the parents are blamed for opting their kid out of vaccinations.)

When birth control becomes something everyone does by default, the act of not doing it becomes a choice, and only those who make that decision will pass their genes on to the next generation.

At least some people feel the urge to reproduce outside of the desire for sex.  Should any of that be heritable it will continue to be selected for while the heritable traits that lead to accidental reproduction (impulsiveness, general or situational) will no longer be genetic advantages.

If the only people who have children are those who want them, if there is any such thing as an "Urge to Parent Gene" it will eventually dominate the population.  (A "faith gene" counts, as those who have the gene and are members of a religion that commands reproduction will obey.)

But I do agree with you, if I'm understanding you correctly, that a tendency toward impulsive sex is the more common reason for reproduction than the specific urge to have children ... for now.

And yet, people will still be having children.

[chaoticag]

I think my problem with the word purpose is right here:

pur·pose   /ˈpɜrpəs/  Show Spelled [pur-puhs]  Show IPA noun, verb,-posed, -pos·ing.
–noun
1.the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

Now, I won't deny that the purpose for your curtains are to keep the sun out is right. It is the entire reason for them to exist. In a way, the same can be said of cookies as well, but they were created by man for a reason, and are not good example.

Purpose isn't a god-like concept, untill you apply it to humans. To ask what is our reason for existence is to say "something made us". In the natural sense, our purpose is to continue the circle of life, given to us by the circle of life. But then, you'd have to assign a purpose to the circle of life in that case. Does it have a purpose? For now, I'll assume not, and say that serving a purpose, in something that has no purpose, is the same as having no purpose at all.

I hope that clears things up.

[Forumsdwarf]

There were at least another three or four species

Australopithecus miscellaneous ...

[Andir]

Just going to key in real quick before I head out for the day... on the birth Issue.  Humans and other mammal probably have the most accurate reproductive methods.  Most mammals have protective methods for staying off possible mates until such time comes when they are ready to raise young on their own.  I'm no expert, but I think that has to do with hard-wired instinct as far as "when is the right time."  By in large though, most plants shed their seeds at a certain time each year based on stored energy where mammals usually have much shorter cycles.  What's interesting to me is that humans evolved with the ability to reproduce so much, but we stay off this urge because of our intelligence to determine support needs.  (Well, some of us have developed such intelligence...)  If we had to though, humans could continue reproducing and literally saturate this planet to a point where food and space was scarce.  I think that's an oddity in nature, but I don't believe it's driven by some external force.  I feel as though it's more of random chance that we learned to defend ourselves and wormed our way to the top of the food chain, but through heredity, we understand there's a point where our offspring might "eat us to stay alive" so we hold off.

[dreiche2]

Yeah Neruz, something having a purpose implies some intelligent agent attributing a purpose to that something.

Breed isn't much of a purpose in life

Sounds like a pretty good purpose to me. Care to explain what's wrong with it?

There's nothing inherently wrong with that purpose if that's the purpose you want to assign to your life.  It would, arguably, be wrong however to argue that this purpose follows from reasons other than your personal arbitrary choice.

We are subject to evolution, but making aspects of evolution - DNA replication - your personal purpose is arbitrary. We are also subject to gravity, so you might as well make the purpose of your life to jump off a cliff...

I mean, it's up to you, really